Iron Men... Are you sure this is Tennis?
- Thread starter DanCPA
- Start date
Oh, yeah.
I've been watching tennis for 33 years, and that's one of the ten best matches I've ever seen—right up there with Borg-McEnroe 1980 Wimbledon (still the best ever for sheer excitement, in my view), Lendl-Cash 1984 U.S. Open (the "Super Saturday" match, considered the greatest day of tennis in history), Agassi-Ivanisevic 1992 Wimbledon (how anyone weathers that many aces and still wins defies belief), Safin-Sampras 2000 U.S. Open (the greatest match ever played by a mortal man, in my opinion—only a god could have beaten Safin that day, and I'm convinced it would still have gone four sets), Sampras-Agassi 2001 U.S. Open (the inconceivably clean "no breaks of serve in four sets" gem) and Safin-Federer 2005 Australian Open (perhaps the only time Federer has ever been given pause by someone's naked power—and a reminder of what a tragedy it is that Marat Safin usually cannot get his head out of his ass).
Because Federer was a semifinalist Down Under, a finalist at the French, a finalist at Wimbledon and is still defending champion at both the U.S. Open and the Masters Cup.
Now, in the minds of most players and pundits, Nadal is world number one already ... and unless Djokovic wins both the U.S. Open and Masters Cup, Rafa's a shoo-in for ATP Player of the Year. The computer usually lags behind common sense, though: Remember how long Martina Hingis remained number one on the computer when it was apparent to all that both Williams sisters has left her in the dust?
Fear not, though: Barring a catastrophic injury, Nadal will be number one by December.
Who would be ranked number one if Federer wins the Masters Cup and U.S. Open? Still Federer?
I thought they did that cuz Hingis was cute
That's what I've heard... but it seems obvious that he is the best player in the world.
So, predictions for the next major?
Not necessarily, Daedalus12, in that Federer, because he's the current title holder in both, is attempting to maintain his lofty perch ... and has a hefty 3,175 points to defend the rest of the season. Technically, he could go on an absolute tear by winning a few more Masters shields and other lesser tournaments, while also again winning everything he won over this time last year. Functionally, though, he can't really boost his numbers much higher than they are—not having lost 850 points at the last three Slams and thus being unable to gain any at either the U.S. Open or Masters Cup, where he must win simply to maintain his status there.
Nadal, on the other hand, will be 795 points behind Federer as of this Monday (he withdrew from Stuttgart's Mercedes Cup as a precautionary measure to rest his knees, and will lose 250 points as a result) ... but has only a comparatively measly 1,175 points to defend from that point forward until 2009. In other words, if Federer has a superlative (as opposed to superhuman) summer and fall, then wins the year-end championships, he'll probably've managed to maintain his points around 6,600 or so. [I consider this unlikely, though, in that Djokovic's best surface is hard courts, and Federer's aura of invincibility has been largely dispelled by Rafa having snapped up his Wimbledon title on a surface where he was supposedly invincible.] If on the other hand Nadal, who usually has an unremarkable summer and has never been a significant threat at the U.S. Open, does anything before Flushing Meadows, Federer will be under enormous pressure come August ... and since Nadal only has a Round of 16 appearance (150 points) to defend there, any kind of decent run—say, to the semis or quarters—gets him points.
The Olympics may play a pivotal role here, too: The ATP is awarding points for the medalists and other high finishers ... and they're being played on hard courts, which gives Federer a chance to grab a few more points to which he'd not have otherwise had access—which is quite unfortunate for Nadal, who deserves at least a brief run at number one sometime during his career.
My best guess: Federer will lose number one to Nadal sometime before next year's Aussie Open; then Rafa will relinquish it in turn, either to Federer or Djokovic, sometime before the clay court season begins.
If Nadal manages to retool his game for hard courts, too, though ... get ready for a long Rafa reign. I wouldn't bet against him; after all, people said he was a clay court specialist. They've been forced to eat crow ...
...and grass.
TighsEye said:I thought they did that cuz Hingis was cute.
She used to be number five on my fantasy list of women I could do without angering the wife. I think she's been replaced there by either Ana Ivanovic or Maria Kirilenko.
Oh, boy.
Well, we have two main contenders ... and at this point Rafa is not one of them.
In this corner, Roger Federer: Still a nearly untouchable hard court player.
The challenger: Novak Djokovic, whose powerful and nearly weakness-free game allows him to stay with FedEx even on the latter's second most-preferred surface.
Right now, I like either Federer or Djokovic to win the U.S. Open series this summer, and Novak to take the Slam itself ... but that may change as the tournament itself approaches.
As to dark horses, well ... Roddick is a threat, but his star is fading. If he doesn't win at Flushing Meadows this year, or Australia come 2009, put a fork in him insofar as Slams are concerned. Frankly, I've always been of the opinion that he and Hewitt won their combined three Slams in the interregnum between the Ages of Sampras and Federer. [That period should have been the Safin Era, but Marat's often in his own private Siberian mental gulag, so ...] Same for Blake, but he's got less chance than Roddick, IMO—insufficient killer instinct.
Breakthrough possibilities at Flushing Meadows this year? Hmm.
Rafa? I don't see it quite yet ... but I wouldn't count him out Down Under next year—which would be his hard court Slam breakthrough.
Tsonga? Maybe, but unlikely. He's an injury waiting to happen.
Gasquet? Too much Gallic sensitivity.
Davydenko? Nope. He'll never win a Slam, IMO. He's got neither the talent nor the steel of a Safin or Kafelnikov.
Ferrer? Not enough weaponry for a fast hard court Slam. His best chance is at Roland Garros, if Nadal and Federer are spirited away by aliens. Maybe, maybe Down Under—someday.
Nalbandian? If he comes back from La La Land, he's got the talent. I ain't holdin' my breath, though.
Wawrinka? He's not ready, and probably never will be. Nice kid, though.
Murray? Ah, now here's an interesting fellow. He and Baghdatis possess all the talent necessary, but their conditioning and motivation have always been in question. They seem headed in opposite directions, too, but ... Marcos is the kind of guy who just might win his Slam the instant people forget about him. As for Andy ... he gives Federer fits, and he's not afraid of anyone. But in New York? I don't think so.
My black stallion for the U.S. Open is Marat Safin.
Similar threads
